lefteris_kaliamboswikiaorg-20200214-history
SIMPLE NUCLEAR STRUCTURE
Lefteris Kaliambos (Natural Philosopher) April 8, 2016 Despite the enormous success of the Bohr model and the quantum mechanics of Schrodinger in explaining the principal features of the hydrogen spectrum and of other one-electron atomic systems based on the well-established laws of electromagnetism, so far neither was able to provide a satisfactory explanation of chemical properties of atoms. So it was my published paper “Spin-spin interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures” based on electromagnetic laws (2008), which supplied the clue that resolved this puzzle. ( See the ground state energies of elements in my FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS CONCEPTS). In the same way in my earlier published paper “Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism” (2003) I showed that the new structure of nuclei is based on the same electromagnetic laws, because both the proton and the neutron consist of considerable charge distributions able to give the simple nuclear structure.This photo is from my presentation of the new nuclear structure at a nuclear conference held at NCSR : "Demokritos" (2002). Historically, after the discovery of then assumed uncharged neutron (1932), it was clear that the atomic nucleus is made up from protons and neutrons. However in such a system of an assumed uncharged neutron nuclear physicists abandoned incorrectly the well-established laws of electromagnetic forces in favor of fallacious theories and nuclear structure models. Therefore, a wrong concept of a fallacious strong nuclear force was introduced. In 1935, the first invalid theory for such a fallacious force was developed by the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa, who suggested incorrectly that the nucleons would exchange particles between each other and this mechanism would create the force. Yukawa constructed his false theory in analogy to a wrong theory of the invalid quantum electrodynamics in which physicists under the influence of Einstein’s massless quanta of fields abandoned the well-established laws of at a distance interaction and introduced the false idea that the interaction is due to the exchange of a (massless) photon. Moreover in the absence of a realistic nuclear force a number of fallacious nuclear structure models were developed. The liquid drop model was one of the first models of nuclear structure, proposed by Weizsäcker in 1935. It described the nucleus as a semiclassical fluid made up of neutrons and protons, with an internal repulsive electrostatic force proportional to the number of protons. The assumption of nucleus as a drop of Fermi liquid was still widely used in the form of Finite Range Droplet Model (FRDM), due to the possible good reproduction of nuclear binding energy on the whole chart, with the necessary accuracy for predictions of unknown nuclei. Although the liquid drop model was generally quite adequate, there were significant departures whenever the number N of neutrons and Z of protons is close to 2, 20, 28, 50, 82, or (for N) 126. Near these so-called magic numbers the binding energy of the last nucleon is unusually large. The strong binding of nucleons near magic numbers was reminiscent of the great stability of inert-gas atoms and suggests that there may be some sort of “ shell structure” in nuclei. In atoms the shell structure was assumed to be a direct consequence of the Pauli principle according to which two electrons of opposite spin provide a binding energy . For example in Hydrogen with one electron we observe a binding energy of -13.6 eV while in helium with two electrons of opposite spin we observe a binding energy of -79 eV. In fact, the great binding energy of helium atom is due not to the qualitative approaches of the so-called exclusion principle, but to the Coulomb law and to my discovery of the vibration energy of two electrons of opposite spin. ( See my EXPLANATION OF HELIUM IONIZATIONS). If the nuclear force were predominantly a central force, we would classify also nuclear states according to angular momentum quantum numbers. The nuclear shell was proposed by Maria Mayer and H. Jensen who shared the 1963 Nobel Prize in physics. However, after my discovery of nuclear force and structure, the nuclear force is much different from the Coulomb force and is, moreover, strongly spin- dependent. (See my STRUCTURE OF MAGIC NUCLEI). Note that the nuclear shell model was based strongly on the Pauli principle which cannot be applied in the simplest structure of nuclei. For example in the binding energy of deuteron we observe parallel spin, while the Pauli principle is based on the opposite spin. Nevertheless in “Nuclear structure -WIKIPEDIA” one reads: “The concept of shells allows one to understand why some nuclei are bound more tightly than others. This is because two nucleons of the same kind cannot be in the same state (Pauli exclusion principle). So the lowest-energy state of the nucleus is one where nucleons fill all energy levels from the bottom up to some level. A nucleus with full shells is exceptionally stable, as will be explained”. Of course the fallacious theories of nuclear structure cannot form a unified model because in the absence of a realistic nuclear force all nuclear properties could be predicted from a set of assumptions. Under such incorrect ideas a model of independent particles was also introduced. On the other hand in the 1970s and 80s, for understanding more the nuclear force several invalid meson models were developed that went beyond the simple single-particle exchange mechanism. These wrong models included, in particular, the explicit exchange of two pions with all its complications. Well-known models of the latter kind are the Paris (Lacombe et al.,1980) and the Bonn potential (Machleidt et al., 1987). However, with the development of a new fallacious theory (in the 1970s) that the so- called strong interaction is due to a false “color force” of the invalid quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and not meson theory, all “meson theories” had to be viewed as models, and the attempts to derive a proper theory of the nuclear force had to start all over again. Of course after the abandonment of the well-established natural laws the problem with a derivation of nuclear forces from QCD was two-fold. First, each nucleon consists of three quarks such that the system of two nucleons is already a six-body problem. Second, the force between quarks, which was assumed to be created by the exchange of gluons, has the feature of being very strong at the low energy scale that is characteristic of nuclear physics. This extraordinary strength makes it difficult to find “converging” mathematical solutions. Under this PHYSICS CRISIS I presented at the international conference “Frontiers of fundamental physics” (1993) my paper ‘Impact of Maxwell’s equation of displacement current on electromagnetic laws and comparison of the Maxwellian waves with our model of dipolic particles ”. In that paper I showed that LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS INVALIDATE FIELDS AND RELATIVITY . Surprisingly at the same time in Larissa when I analyzed carefully the experiments of the magnetic moments in protons and neutrons I found that considerable charge distributions in protons and neutrons are able to reveal the nuclear force and nuclear structure by reviving the natural laws of electric and magnetic forces acting at a distance. Whereas the two contradicting theories of mesons and of the Quantum Chromodynamics proposed by Yukawa and Gell-Mann respectively provide fallacious force carriers (mesons) or color forces between false massless gluons which cannot lead to nuclear structure. Although my new discovery of considerable charge distributions in nucleons revealed the nuclear structure by using not the theories but the well-established laws of nature unfortunately these novel ideas met at first much skepticism and occasionally overt resistance. Nevertheless after several years from the publication of my paper of 2003, today it is well-known that the considerable charge distributions in nucleons deduced from the experiments of the magnetic moments give very important results invalidating the two different theories of meson and of the Quantum Chromodynamics. For example the nuclear experiments showed that the simple (uud) for proton and the (dud ) for neutron are wrong schemes, because the mass of the discovered quarks by Gell-Mann cannot be compared with the mass of nucleons. Moreover according to my discovery of the Photon-Matter Interaction the hypothetical energy of massless gluons cannot turn into the mass of nucleons. Also such wrong schemes in proton and neutron could not be compared with the deep inelastic scattering and the experiments of the magnetic moments μ for proton and neutron. According to the deep inelastic scattering experiments the fallacious scheme (uud) for proton should give a negative charge (– e/3) at the center surrounded by the positive charge of ( +4e/3) , while Sanders in 1957 for the proton of mass M and spin S found that μ/S = 2.793(e/M). Our detailed analysis of this formula based on laws showed that in proton among 288 quarks there exist 9 extra charged quarks giving negative charge of -q = -5e//3 at the center and positive charge of +Q = +8e/3 along the periphery. Note that such charge distributions led not only to my discovery of nuclear force and structure based on the well-established electromagnetic laws but also to my discovery of the new structure of protons and neutrons given by Proton = [ 93(dud) +5d + 4u ] = 288 quarks = mass of 1838.68 electrons Neuron = [ 92(dud) + 4u +8d ] = 288 quarks = mass of 1836.15 electrons So the application of electromagnetic laws between the nine charged quarks in proton and the twelve charged quarks in neutron led to the simple nuclear structure of deuteron (pn), the H3 (npn), the He3 (pnp), the He4, and the He6. (See my “Structure and binding of He4 and He6”). From the structure of He4 it is possible to describe the structure of H3 and He3 given by the following diagrams respectively = n'2'(-1/2) p'2'(-1/2) = = p'1'(+1/2)…n'1'(+1/2) n'1'(+1/2)… p 1(+1/2) = In both cases the two systems of p1n1 and n1p1represent the deuteron and operate along the radial direction with S = 1/2 +1/2 = 1. Whereas the p1n2 and n1p2 operate along the spin axis to give S = 0 . Here the repulsive forces of n1n2 and p1p2 disturb the symmetry of the oriented systems. On the other hand the experimental binding energies B(H3) = -8.48 MeV and B(He3) = -7.71 MeV lead to the conclusion that the disturbance must reduce the binding energies of the simple pn systems, while the repulsive energies U(n1n2) and U(p1p2) of identical nucleons are the same as those of the symmetric He4, since they are non oriented. So looking at the above diagrams we write -B(H3) = -B(p1n1) - B(p1n2) +U(n1n2) = -8.48 MeV -BHe3) = -B(n1p1) - B(n1p2) +U(p1p2) = -7.71 MeV Note that in these simple mirror nuclei the binding energies of the pn bonds satisfy the conditions: B(p1n1) = B(n1p1) and B(p1n2) = B(n1p2) While the different total binding energies of He3 and H3 are due to the different repulsive energies of the unlike pp and nn systems. Therefore B(He3) -B(H3) = -7.71 - (-8.48) = 0.77 MeV = U(p1p2) - U(n1n2) Since U(p1p2) 0.867 MeV and U(n1n2) = 0.097 we may write -B(p1n1) = -B((n1p1) = -1.3 MeV This means that the repulsive energies of identical particles reduce the binding energy of deuterons from -2.2246 MeV to -1.3 MeV. Then for the binding energies along the spin axis we may get -B(p1n2) = - B(p2n1) = -7.277 MeV. Under this condition we write -B(H3) = -1.3 -7.277 + 0.097 = - 8.48 MeV and -B(He3) = -1.3 -7.277 + 0.867 = - 7.71 MeV Although the pp repulsion is stronger than the nn repulsion, we see that the He3 nuclide is stable. it occurs because we observe two bonds per neutron. In other words in He3 the neutron cannot decay because it forms two bonds with the two protons. This means that the applications of the well-established laws of electromagnetism lead not only to the simple nuclear structures and binding energies but also explain all nuclear properties. Whereas the wrong nuclear models cannot lead to the simple structure of nuclei. Category:Fundamental physics concepts